User:Seddon/Statement

I, nor any other candidate standing this year, can state that we can single-handedly make sweeping changes to the way the Arbitration Committee runs, but we should endeavour to push for changes.

History Rundown: I've been around since November 2007. Since then I have contributed 5500+ edits, written a FA, a GA, contributed four featured pictures and two featured sounds. I have mediated several cases at MedCab and am on the Mediation Committee. I have been an arbitration clerk since July 2009. I am also on the board of directors for Wikimedia UK and am part of the volunteer response team. In terms of how these responsibilities would affect my ability as a arbitrator, I would no longer serve as a mediator for the mediation committee or an arbitration clerk, as is standard for Arbitrators with backgrounds in these areas.

Arbitration Oversight: There have been many times when the Arbitration Committee has overstepped its remit, or have been slow to react to a serious issue, have acted without sufficient due care and attention or just have been so caught up in the huge reams of evidence that even looking at a page puts you at risk of a topicban. As the project matures and Jimmy's role becomes more diminished and ceremonial, the oversight role he was supposed to hold, should/needs to be filled. This needs to be through the creation of an arbitration oversight body; small in size that it is efficient; large enough to be effective; and most importantly made up of non-arbitrator community members. By working with the community, the committee can solve many of the oversight concerns many members of the community have.

Communication: Too often the committee remains unresponsive, silent to emails and leaves problems and issues fade away into the deep, dark and dreary depths of thier archives.